Discussion on:

The industry's 10 best IT certifications

What About ITIL certification? It's not in the top ten???

Well, I agree with some and not others. Mentioning the Security + over say a SSCP or a CISSP is insane. The security + is basically an intro into the vocabulary used in Security. The SSCP is a engineer type cert that not only teaches you about the basics but takes a very technical look at security. The CISSP is the next step to the SSCP and is for managers.

I hate to say it, but I feel the Security + is about as useful as a A+, Network + - in the regards that you learn basic things that you can use to only get urself into trouble.

to bigger things. Remember back in the beginning when not even you could jump the river in a single bound?

You stole my thunder that was a good quote!
I agree, you cannot become a CISSP until you have 5 years under your belt. Go get the security+ now. BTW, you also get a one-year waiver for S+

Once upon a time, long, long ago there were a few companies who valued the A+ cert. It would get you a repair-center job where you would sit and languish for the next decade.

I can see someone considering them stepping stones, but if noone values the cert, then it's a waste of time and money.

The only time I see these certs are on resumes of people with no experience, fresh out of the training center.

The only time I see these certs are on resumes of people with no experience, fresh out of the training center.

Maybe you';re only advertising entry-level positions, but I get the impression you reach this conclusion for any resume with a CompTIA cert on it. That could be costing you good people; not every certified tech is "fresh out of the training center."

I personally don't see how someone can say A+ and N+ are useless on a resume or how people fresh out of IT Training can be problematic (I could just be miss reading it.) It has personally been my experience that some of the best IT guys out there are fresh cause they still have everything fresh on their brain. There's a lot of people who have been in IT Industry for a long time and are very smart in their field, but when it comes down to the basics they have almost forgot everything they once knew. Now I'm not saying experience means nothing but people forget the stuff they don't use on a regular basis.

What use is there really to a list like this? There are plenty of places to get metric-based supply-demand figures for this kind of thing:

http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/default.aspx?page=1&sortby=6&orderby=0&q=&id=1100&lid=2618

is one such. It is incredibly important to keep in mind that certs make up only part of the picture. Real-world experience, formal university education, and social-networking are all just as important in a well-rounded job candidate.

Pay-wise the credential list would be significantly different imho. Oracle/SQL would rank much much higher, as would J2EE experience. These are of course much more highly technical roles that demand more attention to detail than an MCSE, CCNA, or MCTS will provide.

C'mon guys. 4 MS certs in the top 10? I don't think so. Maybe 5-7 years ago but not today. Whoever compiled your list needs to get into the 21st century.

...Comp TIA Network+? A good base understanding is always a good place to start!

I think ITIL / ITSM Certs should be in there as well. But the cost of the courses / exams aren't for the faint at heart. I guess that's why most people don't have those certs. And with today's economymost companies don't want to pony up the big bucks for employees to go to those classes / training.

How can you not mention Virtualization certification?
With Microsoft certifications, we learn lots of things, however they are not valuable as they used to be.

The certs mentioned here are more foundational. I do agree though, it would have been nice to see some storage and visualization certs, but that is just my opinion.

While the Microsoft certifications are great to have, most business along with the Federal Government (DOD, DOJ, Military, etc) are adopting to a open-source; going with Red Hat Linux SE along with some Microsoft servers (exchange, DC's, etc). I see more and more new server builds going the way of open-source. I'd recommend anyone for these top 4 certifications:

1. RHCE
2. CCNA
3. CISSP
4. MCSE

Either 4 are great to have, as you can't go wrong.

I have 1, 2 (eight of them), 4, and 8 (and am studying for 3 and 7).
The problem is that there are several different MCITP's (at least 9), MCPD's (at least 6), and MCTS's (over 30). I am sure that the area you are certified in varies in popularity or best-ness, so to say that generically MCITP is number one is in error. MCITP: what?
Is the MCITP:Enterprise Support Technician (the new version of the MCDST) the same as the MCITP:Enterprise Administrator on Windows Server 2008? Absolutely not.
The problem with the new certifications is that most people in the HR department have never heard of them.
For example, the MCSD is based on the .Net Framework 1.x, and the exams themselves will no longer be offered after 29 March 2008, while the MCPD is based on version 2.0 or 3.5 - the latest stuff. But if you do a search on DICE, for MCSD you get 173 hits, while for MCPD you only get 38.
By the way, my current contract expires at the end of the year and I am still looking for a new position. If this list was correct, I should be rolling in high-paying offers, but unfortunately I'm not.

I agree with Larry. Most HR are not aware of the list of certifications coming out in the market. Probably, there should be a certification for HR to test their knowledge on the number of certifications in the market.

Also, CBCP is not even mentioned. Is DRII listening to this thread....

Clover Leaf (Quovadx) Certifcation , Healthvision. Integration Services are vital to any organization using multiple applications. Support of in interface engine, encompasses all aspects of IT, yet is so often disregarded. Successful implementation of any system relies on seamless integration with the existing infrastructure.

What is it?

A+, Linux+, and Security+ seem fairly pointless....

Well those types of certs are not pointless to the people who want to get into the IT field but do not have the resources to go to college or just want to test the waters in a certain field instead of diving head first. Also there are people who just like to learn different aspects of IT because I believe at this point we are kind of like doctors. We study a little bit of the general field and then go out and specialize yet we are still excepted to know everything related to technology.


I'm currently studying to get my Systems Engineer degree in college and I still would like to have some certs under my belt.

I could honestly care less about certs when it comes to hiring. It may get you past the HR drones, but you actually have to know your stuff to get past me.

So, you're A+ certified? Can you trouble shoot a piece of hardware? Can you explain why a Windows XP box isn't getting a DHCP address? Can you tell me why, on install, Win XP/Vista can't see the HDD? Can you tell my what the difference is between SATA and eSATA?

So you're Security+? Ok, do a quick risk analysis on this simple network...

So you're Net+? Ok, build a network, configure the routers and switches, and be sure to factor in cost, man hours, etc

The degree is slightly more useful, but you better know what the hell you are talking about...

I have a degree in IT and college gave me allot, but not as far as IT goes. My certs have proven extremely valuable to me in the field as well as on the resume.The degree is important, but most everything of value I have learned professionally I learned on the job on the fly. College didn't help a bit as far as what I really do on the job on a daily basis. Don't be so closed minded towards certs, for someone to take the time and money to acquire them takes initiative and that is an important quality in any employee.

I can't stress how correct you are-right on.

Certs like A+ and Security+ do count. My husband had been a computer tech, repairing computers at a VA hospital for about ten years, when he was passed over for a promotion only because he wasn't A+ certified. I had encouraged him to get that cert, but he felt since he was doing the work anyway, it didn't matter. Not true!

Also, government regulations are requiring many government employees and contractors to have security certifications at different levels, depending on their job classification. Some managers need the CISSP, but the majority only need Security+.

In larger companies you will talk to someone in the IT/IS department for the first interview, after that it goes through HR and the Hiring Manager that makes the final decision. The Hiring Manager is going to look at two things your education background and what certifications you hold to make his/her decission. In small to medium businesses the decission might be made by the IT/IS Manager but the salary will probably be less then the larger company.

First, the list is, uhm, at a disadvantage due to it's apparent scope. Everyone will chime in with certifications more in line with their particular specialization and exclaim that this list is dumb/imcomplete/pointless/etc. because it didn't include said certifications.

Second, even the "outdated" certifications still mean something. They mean that someone went thru the time and effort to get it. Which means that when you ask yourself as an employer evaluating a possible hire "Can he troubleshoot a piece of hardware?" the certification is an indicator that he probably can as opposed to having no idea compared to another applicant who just SAYS he can. This is of course all just on paper (i.e. the application) which is the first hoop. A department head or someone else knowledgeable should still make him jump through a couple more hoops and ascertain whether the knowledge is actually there.

Third, it's all context sensitive. Or position-sensitive rather. Are you hiring a network administrator and he is A+ certificated? Well, whooptie freaking do! Who cares. Hey, look, this guy has MCSA. Maybe I should talk to him first. See how it works? It's a marker of possible knowledge, just like a 4 year degree, not an assurance of that knowledge in and of itself.

Someone mentioned doctors. We basically are in a way as a profession. The biggest difference (besides the obvious) is the oversight by goverment organizations making sure doctors actually know and do things correctly. I can stitch myself up at home but it wouldn't be pretty and I wouldn't be trusted to do it anywhere on other people but we have people in the business that are essentially doing just that with corporate networks and machines. Go figure.

At least the cert got their foot in the door (passed HR). My NT MCSE did that for me and much more.
As an IT Manager and now business owner I won't even look at a resume w/out an degree or cert, unless I or a colleague are familiar with the candidate.

I want someone who has demonstrated an ability start and finish a long tedious process. Degrees and (some) certs do just that.
Next, they have to pass a few practical tests. On that note, I agree that the candidate must effectively demonstrate his/her knowledge.

Consultants and contractors. Generally, if you work for a company as an employee, there may or may not be any requirements for certifications. That's getting rarer though-and often when raises or promotions come around, those with certs are usually given preference over non-certified ones.

But if you are a consultant working for a VAR I can tell you it is absolutely mandatory. And it is not necessarily for any knowledge you get but it is more because of at least two reasons:

1) The client almost always wants to know that the guy they are getting for a contract is vendor certified in whatever they are working on. It doesn't matter if we think this is a good thing or not, the customer is right and is going to award the the contract accordingly.

2) Vendor partnerships almost to a company either require a certain amount of certified individuals on the payroll or if not required it is rewarded (like MS' partner points). Same for VMware, Cirix, etc.

So, especially in this economy, even though I agree that certifications have almost nothing to do with whether a person can do the job, I don't recommend ANYONE be in the position of looking for a job in IT without these at a minimum-I know I keep up them:

MCSE 2003 and higher
VCP (VMware)
CCA or higher (Citrix)
Security +
Linux +
CCNA

Novell has a good Linux cert so that may be useful.

Non technical and boring but managers love these:
Six Sigma
ITIL
PMP
I recommend also one other UNIX certification like HP, IBM, or Solaris-you will definitely set yourself apart from the crowd.

So you and others may be in a position to poo-poo certifications and the like but those who are looking for a job right that don't have some of these are probably kicking themselves for not taking the time and expense (yes even if you have to do it yourself on your own time and money-after all it is YOUR career responsibility not your company's).

I NEVER said to NOT get the cert and I NEVER said they weren't useful.

A) They get your past HR and get your resume on my desk.

B) The certs may or may not mean you know your stuff...so I would rather ensure you know with both experience on the resume and interview questions.

C) With certs like ITIL, you've made the attempt to prove that you are both technical and able to function in the world of magic and pixie farts

As for the rest of the comments...meh...you still have to prove your worth, a piece of paper doesn't do that.

It was my way in

Ok jm I have to agree with your assessment of ITIL but I'll disagree with you on the value of an A+ cert. Like you I carefully scrutinize new hires on various resume bullets as well wrap in questions regarding the position's duties. If they list having a particular cert then I will ask them pointed questions dealing directly with the certification. I also ask them to bring in a copy of the certificate or share a transcript via Microsoft's MCP sharing tool.

With that said, I still firmly believe that the A+ and MCDST (now MCITP EST) certs are essiential to the development of quality support technicians. Furthermore I believe these certs serve as stepping stones to other facets of IT and bolster organizational loyalty. This means you keep the quality people in house and move them from the service desk to sysadmin, networking, or security teams.

For the life of me I cannot understand why ITIL was ignored. The technical certifications are fantastic if you plan on staying a technician or engineer but what about management? A simple search of Help Desk or IT Ops Manager positions in this area will show that nearly all of them require some experience with ITIL. The v3 Foundations certification has become a must for anyone wishing to go higher than Team Lead or Senior Support Tech.

I personally feel that this cert should not have been snubbed due to its wide benefit to IT as a whole. While most certs pertain to their specific technology, ITIL defines the entire IT lifecycle for an organization and serves as the cornerstone for end user support.

Que?

...the company in question paid for you to get certified probably. If one gets certified in anything on one's own time and dime and the company one works for doesn't care or acknowledges it with a pay increase perhaps then it will bolster organizational DISloyalty. As in "screw this place. I'm finding somewhere better."

The only people who make money off "certifications" are the (fly by night) schools teaching them. They don't translate to a higher salary.

at a $3/hour pay raise awarded for completing my A+...

For software disciplines and processes the best courses are from Rational. Microsoft use a draft type of process. DSL is rather a method, not a methodology etc.

No Sun certificates including SCEA

A lot of microsoft qualifications there. From my experience every infrastructure professional will need to be microsoft certified indeed but as almost all engineers and consultants are just so certified it doesn't list as important as other vendor qualifications to make you stand out in your organistation. Over the past few years all businesses seem to be asking for the golden 3 MCSE , CCNA and VCP. Along with vendor specific qualification from HP, dell or IBM. Within networking CICSO is still king when soliciting for job. I think the new Microsoft qualification system has far from clarified the situation. Companies knew the MCSE/MCSA scheme and who in their organisation needed what. I have also seen that employers still aask for MCSE and not for MCTIP and i think this will be a long time in coming. To conclude for now i think qualifying in virtualisation (VCP, XEN server), security and networking (Cisco)and storage( HP, Dell, IBM) is more relevant for someone wanting to maximise their skill set and saleability.

When applying for a new position this is probably the most important IT certification

Ideally it should be dated no later than 1979 but anything up to 1969 can be accepted as reasonably current at a pinch, anything earlier is too far out of date and you should seriously think of a new profession as no matter what other certification you have you won't get the position

I can't tell from your post whether you are representing the Hiring Agencies (i.e. being serious) or fed up with such a moronic approach to the value of experience. I think that the original article demonstrates the problem beautifully - mainly Microsoft issued, short lifespan, probably out of date soon after you get them.
Oh for HR departments that can read CVs and actually understand them rather than relying on a database search to find suitable candidates.
Experience is a great qualification to get, and the BCS recognise it in their CITP or higher membership status.

.. fed up with the moronic approach to the value of experience ..

sums it up perfectly

if you are over forty you may as well become a certified plumber or electrician for all the IT posts you are going to successfully apply for

I am soooo pleased - have a good Christmas, and hopefully a prosperous New Year.

As an IT person who is 39, I for one consider your statement somewhat discriminatory. Age has nothing to do with your ability to do what needs to be done. It also has nothing to do with your IT related skills, knowledge and experience. Employers, in my view, should look at education, skills and knowledge first, and then experience after that.

Employers, in my view, should look at education, skills and knowledge first, and then experience after that.

Permit me to ask a stupid question: If experience isn't that important, where are you supposed to get the skills and knowledge? Education?

Yeah, right...